DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM

DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Lounge (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Royal Baby (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108890)

Jeff Almeyda 07-23-2013 12:00 PM

Royal Baby
 
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

Arky 07-23-2013 12:04 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Ah... And I was just about to ask you why you even bother... ;-)
I couldn't care less, too.

Thinking of the merchandise related, that must be huge business.

It seems those people have one thing that's needed if you want to stand in line there... an absence of intellect. Not everybody has that ;-)
Did some of those at least care to bring a practice pad and some sticks with them? Now that would be a significantly different situation - spending a lot of quality time on some good stuff, haha.

keep it simple 07-23-2013 12:26 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arky (Post 1163686)
Did some of those at least care to bring a practice pad and some sticks with them?

Classic!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) ;) ;)

Midnite Zephyr 07-23-2013 02:55 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
It has been the top story for 3 days now, and it's still the top story! How are we supposed to get our Justin Bieber news when all they want to talk about is the Royal Baby?

It's a nice diversion from that Trayvon story.

slowrocker 07-23-2013 03:11 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
I think most of the people don't really care, but the media turns it into a circus. It happens with so much stuff. Those people are crazy, but when we get their stuff and listen to them I guess it fuels them.

Midnite Zephyr 07-23-2013 03:18 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Yeah, at least it's a positive story. Everything else in the news is mostly negative stuff about tragic accidents or giant fires blazing or schools getting shot-up, etc & so on. On and on it goes and the wheel in the sky keeps turning...

planoranger 07-23-2013 06:18 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
One Major League Baseball team has volunteered to be official Royal Baby Food Testers (the KC Royals)

Muckster 07-23-2013 06:30 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
To all my UK friends: How much is the UK tax payer burdened with the royals?

BacteriumFendYoke 07-23-2013 07:32 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muckster (Post 1163782)
To all my UK friends: How much is the UK tax payer burdened with the royals?

Very little, probably.

I am a Republican (in the classical sense of the word) but there is no doubt in my mind that the UK gains a lot in terms of tourism and business as a result of the Royal Family. I'd guess that they were financially neutral in macroeconomic terms but quantifying that is incredibly difficult and I'd say that my guess is purely speculative.

My issue is that constitutionally the monarch has power to override any single parliamentary bill. They never would but I have real issues with that kind of power potential lying with one individual.

Bad Tempered Clavier 07-24-2013 01:16 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muckster (Post 1163782)
To all my UK friends: How much is the UK tax payer burdened with the royals?


Depends how one defines "burdened". The Sovereign Grant, which replaced The Civil List, is the annual allowance that the UK government gives to the head of state in order to run her rather costly operation. This year it's just over 30 million GBP - around 70% of which pays the salaries of her staff. This figure does not take into account the amount of personal wealth the queen has and how much income is generated by the various privy purses bestowed upon her and other members of the royal family. These sources of funding are essentially real estate portfolios and are, like everything else in the royal sphere, hereditary acquisitions.


Whereas the royal family themselves are probably no more expensive to run than a fleet of nuclear submarines or whatever, I guess the "burden" felt by some citizens of the UK relates to whether or not one feels having a monarch is worth the bother in the first place. To be fair, if absolutely everyone in the UK had the same standard of living as the queen then the question you raised would be less contentious.

Pocket-full-of-gold 07-24-2013 01:32 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Yes, the royal sprog has had its fair share of airtime in the colonies too.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Almeyda (Post 1163684)
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Tempered Clavier (Post 1163900)
Whereas the royal family themselves are probably no more expensive to run than a fleet of nuclear submarines or whatever,

Offset substantially by the tourist dollar it manages to generate too, I take it?

DrumEatDrum 07-24-2013 02:04 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold (Post 1163907)

Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

Difference is people doing the camping for the President at least had some say in the election.

No one camping out for the baby had a hand in making the baby.

Pocket-full-of-gold 07-24-2013 02:14 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrumEatDrum (Post 1163914)
Difference is people doing the camping for the President at least had some say in the election.

No one camping out for the baby had a hand in making the baby.

Both groups have a hand in paying for them though!! :-)

Bad Tempered Clavier 07-24-2013 02:19 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
According to the UK Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, none of the occupied royal residences made it into the top 15 UK tourist destinations in 2012. At a meager 613,000 visits Buckingham Palace didn't even make the top 40. The top 5 attractions last year were all museums and galleries in London - the most popular being The British Museum with around 5.6 million visitors.

I'm sure some of our younger, prettier royals will help to sell the odd copy of Hello magazine now and then but I've never heard any substantial evidence to suggest that tourism in the UK would collapse or even suffer particularly badly if it became a republic.

FoolInTheRain 07-24-2013 07:00 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
What I've always wondered is if the "royal family" have any actual influence and power in British society. I know little, if not nothing at all, about British way of life, but it seems to me that British royalty is kinda like the Kardashians here in the US....just something for the tabloids and paparazzi to hound and harass. IMO, the idea of royalty just seems antiquated and irrelevant in these times.

I think the reality is that only about .00000001% of earth's population is genuinely concerned with this.

aydee 07-24-2013 07:15 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Almeyda (Post 1163684)
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

'Thundering footsteps of an ant climbing the wall'.


( Sorry for riding on the slip stream of this thread, Jeff, but this post specifically is for Andy and Spleen )

MrInsanePolack 07-24-2013 07:16 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
I just don't get it. Someone had a baby. Big deal, it happens numerous times every day. But when it is someone of notoriety that has a baby, everyone drops what they are doing and acts like it is some king of friggin miracle or something. Kate had a baby, so what? So did my mother, and my sister. Hell, my aunt had 5 boys after having 9 miscarriages and being a test dummy for pregnancy drugs. If anything, that deserves a mention more than someone who can conceive normally. But she isn't famous, so her kids (my cousins) are not worth anything to society. If they had money it might be a different story.

keep it simple 07-24-2013 10:08 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrumEatDrum (Post 1163914)
No one camping out for the baby had a hand in making the baby.

I'd be happy to take a stab at that ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aydee (Post 1164024)
'Thundering footsteps of an ant climbing the wall'.


( Sorry for riding on the slip stream of this thread, Jeff, but this post specifically is for Andy and Spleen )

Those bloody ants again Abe! I can only surmise you're playing your drums too quietly these days. Time for some rock drumming for you m'lad.



On the subject of funding the royal family (minus periphery royals), I think we should spend more, not less (let the flaming begin). No, I'm not tied up in the romance thing, but yes, I am patriotic. You can tear the finances apart as much as you like, but having travelled the world extensively in a business capacity for many years, I can assure you that, as a marketing tool for UK PLC, they're unequalled. It's not just the tourism side of things (& counting visits to royal attractions isn't a valid measure here. The royals are seen as representative of an unreal society fabric & pageant that attracts visitors per se), it's added gravitas to our country's overseas representations. Biggest mistake we (as a country) made in recent times was not replacing the royal yacht. That thing was a bloody gold mine in terms of hosting business functions overseas. Sure you can have a prime minister/president/whatever arrive in a smart aircraft & be driven through the streets in almost cavalcade style, then host a "dinner" in a local building of note, but that's hugely trumped by a queen arriving serenely in a classic yacht, dropping anchor in a location that affords a panoramic view, then hosting a classic reception. So much more class, so much more pull. If I was on a trade mission kinda deal, I know which I'd rather be associated with. The politician lead deal is impressive, the queen/royal yacht fronted deal is "special". Soap box away for the day :)

BacteriumFendYoke 07-24-2013 10:25 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolInTheRain (Post 1164021)
What I've always wondered is if the "royal family" have any actual influence and power in British society. I know little, if not nothing at all, about British way of life, but it seems to me that British royalty is kinda like the Kardashians here in the US....just something for the tabloids and paparazzi to hound and harass. IMO, the idea of royalty just seems antiquated and irrelevant in these times.

I think the reality is that only about .00000001% of earth's population is genuinely concerned with this.

You're forgetting that the British Royal Family or at least the idea of the Monarchy itself stretches back well over a thousand years. Although I'm a Republican in many respects, the history of the British monarchs is quite remarkable and quite a few old families (like mine) are able to trace themselves back to at least one of the royal houses and at least one monarch (I can with two, if I recall). In a sense, it is a big part of our identity as a nation.

One of the mistakes that people make when thinking about British aristocracy is that they're all wealthy. Most of them are but it's a quirk in the British class system that you don't have to be rich to be upper class - it's a lot more than that. In the same way, the role of the Royal Family is misunderstood.

They actually do hold political power. The Queen is our head of state, so if a bill is approved by both houses of parliament, it still has to be ratified by her. In theory, she could refuse to sign a bill that has been democratically debated and approved. She probably never would refuse a bill but I cannot stand the idea of one individual having that power.

keep it simple 07-24-2013 03:05 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
1 Attachment(s)
Gotta love the Private Eye front page ;)

BacteriumFendYoke 07-24-2013 05:43 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by keep it simple (Post 1164106)
Gotta love the Private Eye front page ;)

Nearly bought a subscription the other day. Now I definitely have to get it.

Dr_Watso 07-24-2013 06:12 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold (Post 1163907)
Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

There's morons here that will stand in line for days just to have the privilege of getting the first "new" apple phone in the store, they stand in said line and mess with their current apple phone they got 6 months ago in the last "line". Idiocy comes in many forms.

DrumEatDrum 07-24-2013 06:20 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold (Post 1163907)
Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

The other difference is the Presidential inauguration is only the top headline in all the news for a day or so.

This baby has been the top story everywhere for days on end now. Even today, the headlines are in HUGE BOLD letters about how the queen met the baby.

I think the general USA news media forgot this country stopped being under the royal crown some 237 years go.

keep it simple 07-25-2013 10:46 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
1 Attachment(s)
.................................

MrInsanePolack 07-25-2013 10:52 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Haaaaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Now that is funny!!!!! Boy George Alexander Louis!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!!

aydee 07-25-2013 12:27 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by keep it simple (Post 1164368)
.................................


lol brilliant!!!!!



...........

Anon La Ply 07-25-2013 12:59 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
haha! What sex is the baby? We are not sure, your highness.

Seriously though, what bugs me is he's called George. I mean, why not Ringo?? More discrimination against drummers ...

Pocket-full-of-gold 07-25-2013 01:44 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anon La Ply (Post 1164383)
I mean, why not Ringo??

Perish the thought. Then we'd have bloody Pretty Purdie running about claiming to be king.

Raelthomas 07-25-2013 01:59 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
ARGHHH! Not here as well.....!

I agree OP, but ironically... yeah, above^

Midnite Zephyr 07-25-2013 03:08 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke (Post 1164054)
They actually do hold political power. The Queen is our head of state, so if a bill is approved by both houses of parliament, it still has to be ratified by her. In theory, she could refuse to sign a bill that has been democratically debated and approved. She probably never would refuse a bill but I cannot stand the idea of one individual having that power.

It's like the ultimate veto.

FoolInTheRain 07-25-2013 05:23 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke (Post 1164054)
You're forgetting that the British Royal Family or at least the idea of the Monarchy itself stretches back well over a thousand years. Although I'm a Republican in many respects, the history of the British monarchs is quite remarkable and quite a few old families (like mine) are able to trace themselves back to at least one of the royal houses and at least one monarch (I can with two, if I recall). In a sense, it is a big part of our identity as a nation.

One of the mistakes that people make when thinking about British aristocracy is that they're all wealthy. Most of them are but it's a quirk in the British class system that you don't have to be rich to be upper class - it's a lot more than that. In the same way, the role of the Royal Family is misunderstood.

They actually do hold political power. The Queen is our head of state, so if a bill is approved by both houses of parliament, it still has to be ratified by her. In theory, she could refuse to sign a bill that has been democratically debated and approved. She probably never would refuse a bill but I cannot stand the idea of one individual having that power.

Thank you for the clarification. I do realize that there's a lot of history there with royalty and it really is interesting. I just wasn't sure how much leverage the Queen still had, since there is a multi-party system in place like there is here in the States.

That's interesting what you said about not all upper class are wealthy. I never would have thought that was the case.

BacteriumFendYoke 07-26-2013 01:18 AM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolInTheRain (Post 1164440)
Thank you for the clarification. I do realize that there's a lot of history there with royalty and it really is interesting. I just wasn't sure how much leverage the Queen still had, since there is a multi-party system in place like there is here in the States.

That's interesting what you said about not all upper class are wealthy. I never would have thought that was the case.

Some are but it is mostly to do with inheritance and hereditary positions rather than 'wealth' per se.

For instance, if you are an hereditary Viscount (one of the hereditary titles) then your next born son will inherit that title, regardless of wealth. Traditionally, titles were given by the Monarch for service to the country - for instance, a 'Earl' is an old European title traditionally handed to somebody that has performed a great military service to the country.

The system is further complicated by the political system. A modern 'Lord' (as in 'The House of Lords' - one of the Houses of Parliament) is no longer given an hereditary title. A seat in the House of Lords was until very recently given to somebody that inherited the title from their parent automatically. Now the House of Lords is composed of those that are granted the title in their lifetime (called 'Life Peers' - usually for their expertise in a particular subject or service to the realm) and the seats are not passed down.

So, essentially there are two different forms of 'Lord' (or 'Lady'). Those that have hereditary titles and are no longer permitted to sit in the House of Lords and those that are made Lords or Ladies in their lifetime and are permitted to sit in the House of Lords. It's technically possible for an hereditary Lord or Lady to be seated in the Houses of Parliament but only if they are there by the approval criteria required to be a life peer - regardless of hereditary title.

To complicate it even further, there are six basic ranks of nobility. They are ranked titles. Baronet, Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess and Duke. There are female terms for each of these too, e.g. 'Duchess'. Baronets were never peers and therefore never permitted to sit in the House of Lords, with Baronet being the lowest-ranked hereditary title. Dukes are only below the monarch themselves - hence why Prince Charles is a Duke, as is Prince William.

With the titles traditionally came land, even if the individual first granted the title was from humble origins. With each ranked title came a larger plot of land - so a Marquess was traditionally the owner of a 'March' - a large plot of land. Dukes owned a 'Dukedom', except for two of the Royal Dukes, who own a 'Duchy'. Nowadays, the title merely refers to an area and not the ownership of land - except the two Duchies (Cornwall and Lancaster).

So - a lot of the aristocracy is wealthy as a result of inherited wealth from the lands they were traditionally granted but being an aristocrat is no guarantee of wealth - you may be a life peer (who are often well-paid in their previous occupation and independently wealthy but not necessarily) or your family may have gradually sold off its assets over the generations, leaving the next in line with less.

Funnily enough my Grandparents are quite good friends with a Baronet that owns a small castle near Hereford that has been passed onto him through his family. Other than the land and the title, he's a pretty ordinary (if relatively wealthy) bloke. It's entirely possible for an aristocrat to be destitute and homeless but still have the title.

Otto 07-26-2013 09:45 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Publicity for an antiquated vestigial branch of government in the UK.

Seems like an expensive nastalgia to me...but to each their own....

tamadrm 07-26-2013 10:41 PM

Re: Royal Baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Almeyda (Post 1163684)
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

There are people like my ex sister in law and her daughter who are facinated with anything to do with the royals

When Princess Diana died,it was bedlem over there for months.

When she found out I was going to London and Paris in 2000,she lost her mind,and reminded me every day exactly what she wanted photos of.Double spaced ,typed ,all in capitols followed.

To some,the royals make rock stars look small by comparison.It's just a thing....

I don't get it,buy she dosen't get drumming either.

Steve B


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com